Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government.

That was actually a multi-billion dollar statement in terms of cost to the US.

Why? because now all those people who hold security positions and had to sign that they had never belonged to an organization that advocated the violent overthorow of the US govt will have to be re-investigated if they continue to belong to the NRA.

Fool. The American people own their government by right spelled out in the Constitution. They can't "take over" what is theirs. Armed citizens are the ultimate last ditch the protection against the government being taken over by rogue elements. Go crawl back under your rock.

The Armed citizenry was part of it, but you're missing a lot. The Prussian Drill Washington instituted under Baron von Steuben was the antithesis of Armed Citizens, and even with an Armed Citizenry and an actual army Washington couldn't win until after Admiral de Grasse delivered the historic coup de grasse at the battle of Chesepeake. Armed citizens could make it difficult for the British to hold territory, but they simply could not drive the British out.

And that was in the days when 100 guys with hunting rifles were better-armed then 100 combat troops with military-grade weapons. Nowadays military technology has moved on. A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.

A guy with a rifle is not a threat to any modern Army. What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.

If a guy with a rifle is not a threat, then why are soldiers eissued rifles. Further why is/are democrats so worried about "domestic terrorists" (white guys) with military style weapons? You don't have to be able to conquer an army to be a threat (Just ask Lincoln, Kennedy, King,...)

Kent state as I remember it was the national guard, not the US military per se. It was also a largely peaceful demonstration until the cops moved in and then things escalated. Even when it came to gun fire form the guard (& no one knows for sure why they fired) only 29 of 77 guardsmen would actually do it.

Yeah, cause we haven't lost any troops to guys with rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Check the casualty figures.

IEDs are responsible for roughly 60% of our casualties. Every non-IED incident where we had multiple casualties is either a) an RPG, or b) a car bomb.

I didn't say rifles were useless. You can kill people with them. But if the people of America start taking potshots at marines with their rifles the people of America will get their asses kicked. Body Armor exists.

What they fear are roadside bombs, IEDs, and similar devices.

So explosives should be legal?

That would be a valid conclusion to draw if one believed an armed citizenry was a good idea.

I don't.

I grew up in a black area. In the black experience Armed Citizens are the ones who decide that a) they have a Constitutional right to oppress their neighbors, and b) the Federal government has no jurisdiction to stop them. About half the time they actually convince said Federal government of this fact. At various times this has led to actual slavery, KKK terrorism reducing the black population of various southern states by 20 points (in other words: genocide), segregation, etc.

As far as I can tell all an Armed Citizenry has ever done is a) get killed by the Army protesting taxes, and b) got rid of one corrupt Southern Sheriff. In modern times there are perfectly effective methods of protest that don't get anyone killed, so really all you've got is b). And trading one Sheriff for Segregation does not seem like a very good trade to me.

Yep, as done by such armed civilians as General Washington.Sorry, but the pathetic myth of some guys with old muskets freezing in the woods winning a country alone is pissing on the graves of your ancestors who were not as stupid as you'd like to pretend they were.

Do you mean 1776? Because the change in government in 1774 was the creation of Congress, and if Congress is the "rogue element," that an Armed Citizenry is supposed to fight then the Armed Citizenry lost.

If you're trying to refer to 1776, as I mentioned in another post we couldn't have won that war without a professional army, the French Navy, and French money to pay for it all.

Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?

The Taliban have weapons orders of magnitude better then anything that has even been legal in the US because they have RPGs. Their backup weapon is better then anything currently street-legal in the US (fully auto AKs are not street legal). And yet most of their successful attacks are IEDs.

Military technology is changed. As a weapon today the rifle is where the sword was in 1860-65. It's useful militarily in certain tactical situations, but basing your entire tyranny-prevention policy on rifles...

Not just educated, but educated in tyrannical regimes and systems from abusive relationships to cults to dictatorships which all share common elements apart from scale. Sociology of coercive persuasion [wikipedia.org] in should be taught. 1984, Farenheit 451, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest and many others should all be required reading in school. It's not enough to teach math, science, and so forth. The Soviet Union and their satellites had fantastic educational systems when it comes to the sciences.

"Even if you give the Armed Citizenry 100% credit, you have to ask how they'd beat the US Army today?"

Members of the United States armed forces are also CITIZENS of this land. Each of them has a home, located in some city or town, located in some state or another. Each of them (well, the overwhelming majority, anyway) has loved ones, whom they probably value more than they value the US government.

I'll remind you of General Robert E. Lee, who didn't want to see the states fight each other - but decided that if there were to be a fight, he would fight for his home state of Virginia.

If revolution should happen, you cannot rely on the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force to remain intact as fighting units, to be used against the people of the United States. Nor can you rely on the government's ability to retain control over all the hardware, command infrastructure, or much of anything else.

For this reason, and others, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The government hopes to retain control of DHS if and when the shit hits the fan. Unfortunately for the government - DHS consists of mostly incompetent buffoons, far less capable than agents from any other agency. Further, the loyalty of Napolitano's troops remain untested.

Anyone can sit around and make up scenarios about how a revolution would evolve, and the results of said revolution. History proves one thing: civil wars are fucking MESSY!!

Whilst it is true that "rogue elements" have usurped control of our government, the only last ditch defence possible will be peaceful civil disobedience. Anyone retarded enough to fantasize about armed rebellion has not been paying attention.Eventually, this Homeland Security horseshit will become so intolerable that even the average citizen will realize that it is un-American. This, OTOH, appears to me to be a bit beyond the pale, and outside of our protected speech. I am all about unpopular opinions, I ha

What you said:"The very same day, the head of the NRA said that all americans should be trained in automatic weapons for the eventual day when we have to take over our government."

What NRA President Jim Porter ACTUALLY said:"And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our most greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so that when they have to fight for their country theyâ(TM)re ready to do it. Also, when theyâ(TM)re ready to fight tyranny, theyâ(TM)re ready to do it. Also, when theyâ(TM)re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it."

So training, yes. With automatic weapons, yes. But to take over our government... well, are you suggesting we're living in a tyranny, tovarisch?

So no, the NRA is still not in that category of organizations which advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government. Nice try, though.

Context is important. [forbes.com] The context here is that he had, in the same speech, called Obama a "fake" president, said Eric Holder was "rabidly un-american," and that Hillary Clinton was actively trying to abolish the second amendment along with the UN.

Whether you think those things are true is beside the point: he was pretty clearly suggesting that we were bordering on tyranny and people should be prepared to fight back, potentially against the current government, with weapons. You can't honestly tell me h

Fully how that inconvenient word "militia" tends to get ignored every time the 2nd amendment comes up and people seem to instead see it as a reset button. Look at Syria to get a dose of reality about what a revolution really looks like when it's not just about throwing out a small occupying force from a distant nation.It's funny how in the USA it's considered to be "conservative" to go around yelling about arming in preparation to smash the state.

The US got its ass kicked big time because of the attitude of people like Jim Porter.

I don't think you understand Vietnam all that well. The US was winning the war, if you define war as only containing the elements of combat. To put it in perspective, deaths on the North Vietnamese side were somewhere between double and triple the deaths on the South Vietnamese side, depending on which estimates you use for both North and South Vietnam's deaths. US deaths in Vietnam were actually relatively limited for the number of troops there; somewhere between 800,000 and 2 million died overall, while t

You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).

I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?

The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.

Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:

This may surprise you but world history cannot be acurately modeled by polarised US domestic politics.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were socialists, they were both ruthless totalitarian dictators, what's more they were expert propogandists, so much so that the majority of their people worshiped them (particularly Stalin who set himself up as a demigod). They didn't disarm their people they gave them "inhumane" enemies, weapons, and 20 million graves. The Nazis found so many enemies that by the end of the war one in every two native germans had spent time in a Nazi prison.

Dictators cannot survive without the tacit support of the society they control. Dictatorial control is all about human phycology it has nothing to do with right/left politics, google "Stanford Prison expereriments" and realise that just like everybody else on the planet you also have a potential torturer/victim burried deep within your phyche. These natural human behaviours are waiting for the right environmental context to take over your thoughts and actions (Abu Graib is a recent example).

I see two problems in the US, the first is the overt and shrill propoganda coming from certain sections of the media, in a just society their manevolent lies would be a source of embarrasment but many people do exactly the opposite and swallow the ludicrous comparison of Bush/Obama to Hitler/Stalin. This serves to demonstrate how effective propoganda is in the US.

The second problem is the willingness of the US to lock up it's own citizens, it has the highest incarceration rate in the world, higher than China and 7X that of the EU. A very strong indication that the US is not listening to what their own research has been telling them for 40yrs.

The Connecticut shooter was a good guy UNTIL he pulled the trigger. The Colorado shooter was a good guy UNTIL he pulled the trigger! All of you NRA nutballs thinks that if we somehow manage to isolate the bad guys then the good guys can take them down like a shoot out in the OK corral! The reality is that the bad guys come from the pool we call the good guys. We only know they are bad once they have done their act.

Simply put it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the guns out of the bad guys because they are the good guys to start off with. Yes yes some bad guys are bad guys and are able to get guns. But I ask you a simple question, how the eff did they bad guys get a gun in the first place?

Think hard about this. Smith Wesson (good guy) makes a gun, exchange, exchange, exchange, shooter (bad guy) kills person. We started this chain with a good guy and ended up with a bad guy. How did this happen? According to the NRA it was pixie dust where the gun magically appeared and no good guy was responsible foe it. This is why gun control is not only needed, it is an absolute for it is the good guys that are coopting our society, not the bad guys doing the action. Because bad guys are just that bad guys, but it is the good guys that do business with the bad guys that are the real problems.

Go read the part of The Constitution where they limit funding of the military to a short period of time before it has to come up again.

The FFs were big on the idea of *not* maintaining a standing army, both for avoiding the expense, but even more importantly because they knew that having one created too great a temptation to use it just because it's there, and wanted to keep us away from that kind of mischief.

Having militias made up of civilians with day jobs who also had hunting rifles or whatever meant they could still throw together a defensive force on short notice.

Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.

Welcome to the USSA where freedom of speech means freedom to praise your government, where the right to bear arms means the right to go hunting, where the right to not be searched without a warrant doesn't apply, where due process can be ignored if the president wants you dead.

... Just like every other government on the planet. Government power is only restrained by the People. And the people right now are fat, docile, and more concerned with who'll win the next American Idol. We're a victim of our own material prosperity... but don't worry: When enough people have become impoverished, hungry, and desperate... that'll change. Again, just like every other government on the planet that has failed.

Revolutions generally end up with more problems than they solve. About the only "successful" revolutions have been people revolting against have been against a foreign power that generally doesn't provide much for them.

Yes, the American revolution was (mostly) successful but more often than not they just trade one form of tyranny for another (Russian revolution, French revolution, etc.)

And there has already been too much compromise made within the structure of the US government to save it beyond a complete restructuring which simply is too massive to ever realistically happen (due to stuff like precedence in the court system, the entire mess with regulatory agencies, etc. I mean just look at the number of antiquated laws on the books now!)

That is the dynamic of the people that drive the revolutions, the ones on top usually wants power, not fairness, not justice, even if the ones below could believe that. Current ones (i.e. Syria) probably is targetted on putting a puppet friendlier with USA and/or Israel (probably the same is in the making in Venezuela in the same direction). Others throw away a government that could be bad or not to put someone that usually is worse (think in some of the african ones, where caring about neutral civilians is

Don't kid yourself and look up "extraordinary rendition". The USA had no problems working with the current Syrian government and the rebels know it and are not very happy about it. Any replacement is going to be a bit more difficult for the US to deal with even if (and especially if) they treat their people more justly.

You are a fucking moron. First of all, you've never been to every country, second you've probably never even been outside of the USA. Stop casting your own government's failings on the rest of the world.

Shut the fuck up unless you have firsthand experience. I've personally LIVED in countries that were much more free than the USA and had governments that the people genuinely liked.

He posted “I’m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive),” [...] “(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!”

You could argue that he's just a stupid teenager making a silly empty threat, but, still from the article, "D’Ambrosio was charged last year with threatening to stab his sister to death. The case was dismissed last month."

Boasting and exaggeration of non-existent criminal acts are pretty common in rap—especially of the gangsta variety. In fact, probably just about every rappist has a song claiming that his rhymes be real while all the others be artificial bullshit—oops, I mean (expletive) (don't want to offend anyone now). For example, see Eminem (nsfw) [wikia.com].

Look into? Yes. Arrest for a felony and hold on $1 million bail? You have got to be kidding me.

Yet another case of the "terrorism blank check" being used to screw people over. These days all you have to do is speak the word "terrorism" and the public will cower in fear as various government bodies shit all over the Constitution.

No, no. It's the right to bear arms. You can have brown bear arms, black bear arms, polar bear arms... but not panda bear arms, because they're endangered. And also not koala bear arms, because they're not actually bears.

but if formally charged for 'communicating terrorist threats' this would a set a chilling low bar for terrorist investigations."

Please. It's already chillingly low. How many christians have publicly said gays "should burn in hell" ? How many famous celebrities have said they would shoot government officials if they came to take their guns away? I could come up with dozens of examples of more volatile speech by talking heads on television... and god help us if I decide to include examples from that cesspool of humanity called the internet.

Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.

The 'terrorist' label is just like the 'communist' label, and before that the 'fascist' label, and before that... you get the idea. Every generation has had their government-sponsored boogieman. Terrorist is ours.

Just you wait. Teaching and speaking about the American Revolution will be banned as these were acts of terror. Then, some leftist groups will demand American apologize to Great Britain so as to completely absolve ourselves of any past, present, and future ties to "terrorism". Oh, and freedom of speech was another mistake the American public will need to be re-educated on. And so on and so forth....

Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are. It is, and always has been, about that -- not what you say. Look at the boston bomber -- muslim. Terrorist. But the Aurora shooting? Not a terrorist. Those people that blew up a shiite church in Wisconsin? Not terrorists. In fact, as long as you aren't black, or a muslim, you can probably avoid the "terrorist" label.

Um...this guy isn't even CLOSE to being black or muslim. "Cameron D’Ambrosio," and he looks too white for even that name. I mean, he's from Boston, too. Imagine a dorky white kid with a voice like the Ted (from the movie), but with a higher pitch to his voice.

Being called a terrorist or avoiding that label all comes down to who and what you are.

Glenn Greenwald has been commenting on this issue for a while with respect to the disparate law enforcement treatment Muslims receive in general, and specifically most recently in the way the Boston bombers have been labeled terrorists before there is any real knowledge of motive.

Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

This is far more than a semantic question. Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well. The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe [nathannewman.org]" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah [independent.co.uk]) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies. For the manipulative use of the word "terrorism", see the scholarship of NYU's Remi Brulin [salon.com] and the second-to-last section here [salon.com].

No, instead if you're a white Christian, you're guilty of "hate crimes" which is basically the same thing as the "terrorist" label.

So if you're standing in line at an airport and casually remark that you were found guilty of a "hate crime", people will react the same as if you said you are a convicted terrorist? Riiiight -- and I'm the queen of England.

Don't be silly, Gitmo isn't for criminals, it's for getting reward money equal to two or three times your yearly income plus you get to be rid of that annoying neighbor you've had a grudge against forever.

Agreed. As long as this kid is rotting in jail for B.S. Facebook bravado while Westboro Baptist Church retains its tax exempt status, it's pretty easy to see what's wrong with the American government. Just saying.

Here's the double-standard:Every holy book has brutally violent sections. In the Old Testament God orders genocide more then once. Which means that if you think Islam has to be singled out due to it's violent nature you also think that Judaism, and the third Abrahamic religion (Christianity) need singling out. And in the US the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims are pretty much everyone. It should also be noted that all three religions are explicitly anti-freedom in their holy books. God never lays out a freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. in the Old Testament. He simply says "Do this Jew-boy, or I will find a really creative fucking way to make you suffer." He doesn't create a Congress to balance the Kings of Judea. He just makes David a King. Then Jesus shows up and he doesn't say "Only obey the Emperor when the Emperor respects this list of your freedoms," he says "give the Emperor whatever the fuck he wants."

In other words, you really don't want to have a debate over whether the Koran is more anti-freedom then your Holy Book. It may very well be, but the simple fact is that it doesn't really matter. Just as modern Christians and Jews engage in mental gymnastics to justify obeying three branches of government when God clearly establishes a King and no Legislature, Muslims can reason their way around a Hadith.

Moreover you're missing her point:When's the last time you heard of a Neonazi attack called terrorism? What about the Klan? Both groups exist solely to terrorize large proportions of the American people, but they are never identified as terrorists. In fact the most successful terror-campaign in US History was the Klan's campaign against blacks in the aftermath of Reconstruction. Before the Klan started several southern states were majority black. They managed to get 20 point drops in the black population throughout the South.

From looking at the story, it seems like some prosecutor here wants to come off as tough on crime and terrorists to further their political career. This is Aaron Schwartz all over again. This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine. No reason for 20 years in prison for doing something stupid that harmed no one.The average sentence for rape is around 20 years.

If every musician went and got counseling instead of turning their anger into music and lyrics, we'd all be listening to Justin Beiber. Think about that next time you suggest that someone with a perfectly harmless outlet for their anger "needs counseling" because some people find what they say disturbing.

My notebooks from highschool were filled with that sort of stuff. Listen to anything from the early goth to late industrial music, from the Cure through NIN to Assemblage 23, and some of the lyrics would disturb anyone. Metal music has entire genres devoted to it.

Point being, writing is therapy for some people. Putting the hate, rage, depression, anger, isolation, abuse, whatever into words makes it real. That's a reason writing therapy, and music therapy, are proven counseling methods. Getting those emotions out, on paper, where they can be looked at and understood is a good thing, I agree. But it can be counseling too.

This person in question is just some 18 year old who did something stupid. A reasonable punishment seems like 500 hours community service and a $1000 fine.

Try this on for size: "The person in question is just some 18 year old who said something stupid. Punishment is unnecessary as he's done nothing wrong."

See, the kid never actually threatened anyone. His little rap song was directed at no one. He even made not as himself, but as his play-pretend rapper persona.

That goofy song of his is actually a very healthy way for him to deal with his feelings of powerlessness. Children (and even some adults) do this all the time. It's perfectly normal.

A cute example: My wife and I were watching a friends 4-year-old. We used to keep crabs, which the little fellow really enjoyed watching -- even though he was a little bit frighted by them. To deal with those feelings, he told me about the giant robot crab that eats other crabs but (and this is the important part) doesn't eat people.

How would you prefer that this young suburban rapper deal with his feelings? Write a story, sing a song, paint a picture, etc. or rob a store, bully other kids, do drugs, etc.?

Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.

Umm, he wasn't arrested because of his lyrics, he was arrested because of a rant on Facebook. He seems to be trying to say that he's going to be famous because of his rapping and trying to act like a thug.

Ever seen rap lyrics? The "rant on facebook" looks suspiciously like they could be his rap lyrics to me, especially since he's boasting about becoming famous and acting like a thug.

If its ok to plot killing the president if its for a book?I am sure most people are ok with people making an alternate reality that may be terroristic in nature if its for the purpose of a piece of art or whatever.I am no rap fan, but if those are rap lyrics he is as guilty as a writer that wrote a terrorist plot.

Its not impossible to carry a serious message, but it is very possible and likely that its intention is not to be a bomb threat.

“I’m not in reality, So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fucking federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’m a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me"

Compare that against the shit I remember in the 90s (dre, snoop dog, easy z, compton's most wanted, tupac, blah blah blah) and it's kinda poetic. Eg. Above the Law "Another Execution" and it seems like rap lyrics are getting better:

Because I take out my weapon And I quickly start blastin', I go total loco like a crazy assasin, I look at my posse they say nothings confusin', Why? why? why? It's just another execution

Tribe Called Quest? Jurrasic 5? J-Live? Curren$y? Drake? Jay-Z? Jungle Brothers? De La Soul? Pharcyde? Kanye?... fuckit, that took about 5 seconds and I'm bored already. I'm even too bored to google for delicious metal lyrics. As an intelligent, employed, classically musically trained white guy from the burbs, I feel sad for folks who really think they're "above" rap. You don't have to like it, but it's no smarter or dumber than any other genre.

Come on now, no need to go into armchair revolutionary panic mode. Terroristic threatening is a common statutory criminal offense. It doesn't imply that the perpetrator is a member of a terrorist cell or that our liberties are being attacked. It's sort of like an assault, just a little more specific and serious.

Generalized definition of a terrorist threat:1. Willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm.2. Make threat with the specific intent that it be taken as a threa

Dystopian fiction has always been an interesting topic for nerds. I mean, I'm pretty sure all of us have at least read one or two good dystopian novels that have changed our ways of thinking (1984, Brave New World, We, Anthem, The Time Machine, A Clockwork Orange, etc.) and so when we see the dystopian future that we hoped only existed in the realm of fiction (or at least somewhere other than the US and Western Europe) happening in our backyard, it becomes a discussion point.

I'm still pretty sure Osama was not the one who came up with the plan. I know this sounds like all the other conspiracy theories but whoever is pulling the strings in the US right now are the ones who have the most to profit from the so-called anti-terrorism.

People buy what they want to emulate and it doesn't really matter the genre of music.

I mean, look at AC/DC's Shoot to Thrill

"Shoot to thrill, play to kill
Too many women with too many pills
Shoot to thrill, play to kill
I got my gun at the ready, gonna fire at will"

Or 22-20 Blues by Skip James (written in 1931)

"Sometimes she gets unruly
An she act like she just don't wanna do
But I get my 22-20
I cut that woman half in two"

Almost any genre of music has "questionable" lyrics. I think it is less of music making people bad as much as it is that those who are attracted to a life of crime will listen to music about a life of crime. Just like how people who like hunting, drinking beer and driving trucks listen to country music, its not because of country music that you like those things, you like those things so you listen to country music.

Because of this, there will always be an audience for "criminal" rappers, having a bunch of "quality" rappers won't change it.

That's called a confirmation bias. I think you'd have to be pretty ignorant to ignore the social conditions that drove the birth of gangster rap, and the fact that the rise of gangster rap in the 90s was actually thanks to the purchasing power of the white suburban class who wanted to be bad ass. I'm fairly confident in saying that you haven't any credibility on the history of rap anymore than I have any credibility in speaking about metal.

NWA sang about actively murdering police, and it's legit. This is NOT new, it's not even newsworthy... until this stupid shit becomes fodder for arrests. It's stupid shit, yes but is it really worth arresting on "communicating terrorist threats"? [yahoo.com] Hell no - that's one damn slippery slope.